BILL ANALYSIS Ó
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Christine Kehoe, Chair
SB 974 (Evans) - State parks: proposed closures.
Amended: May 1, 2012 Policy Vote: NR&W 7-2
Urgency: No Mandate: No
Hearing Date: May 24, 2012 Consultant: Marie Liu
SUSPENSE FILE. AS PROPOSED TO BE AMENDED.
Bill Summary: SB 974 would create a process for the Department
of Parks and Recreation (DPR) to review the impact of closed
parks, determine whether future parks should be closed, and plan
for the reopening of closed parks.
Fiscal Impact:
One-time costs of approximately $250,000 and ongoing costs
of approximately $115,000 from the State Parks and
Recreation Fund (General Fund) beginning in 2013-14 to
develop a reopening plan for each closed park.
One-time costs of approximately $1 million and
approximately $150,000 in ongoing costs from the State Parks
and Recreation Fund (General Fund) beginning in 2013-14 for
the development and annual update of the master re-opening
plan.
Background: California's state park system includes 278 park
units in 20 geographically-based districts. California's state
parks are in budgetary crisis. DPR has had to operate the state
park system on an increasingly thin budget. In the 2011-12
budget, the Legislature adopted and the Governor approved an $11
million reduction in General Fund support to DPR with an
additional reduction in 2012-13, for an ongoing annual General
Fund reduction of $22 million. These cuts culminate over two
decades of budget cuts to DPR. At the same time as DPR's budget
has been shrinking, demands on the system have been increasing
due to new state park lands, a growing population, and an
increase in park visitation. These pressures have compounded
into a deferred maintenance backlog of over $1.3 billion,
reduced hours of operation and services at parks throughout the
system, and DPR's proposal to close up to 70 park units
beginning in July 2012.
SB 974 (Evans)
Page 1
AB 95 (Committee on Budget) Chapter 2/2011, established criteria
by which DPR must follow to determine which parks should be
closed. The criteria includes the park's relative statewide
significance, annual visitation numbers, expected net savings
from closure, physical feasibility of closure, deed
restrictions, potential for partnerships to support the park,
and significant infrastructure deficiencies.
Proposed Law: This bill would require DPR to:
By July 1, 2013, conduct a review of the parks closed or
proposed to be closed on July 1, 2012 that includes an
examination of how that park was chosen for closure, the
impact of that closure on the local economy, whether the
closure required action under the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), and how much the closure itself cost.
By July 1, 2013, and annually thereafter, conduct the same
review for any park that may be considered for closure in
the future.
Prepare a report to be posted on the DPR website that
explains the basis for choosing which parks to close. DPR
would be required to hold a public comment period for 30
days after the release of this information and to respond,
in writing and on the website, to all comments received
within 60 days of the end of the comment period.
By July 1, 2013, for each closed park, prepare a plan for
reopening of that unit that includes a description of
required work necessary to reopen the park and the needs of
the reopened park. This plan shall be updated annually if
needed.
By January 1, 2014, and annually thereafter, submit to the
Legislature a master parks reopening plan that determines
the process for reopening a closed park including criteria
to prioritize which parks should be opened first.
Related Legislation: SB 1078 (Evans) currently on the Senate
Appropriations Suspense File; AB 1589 (Huffman), currently in
the Asm. Committee on Revenue and Taxation; Governor proposed
trailer bill for FY 2012-13.
Staff Comments: There has been considerable public concern
regarding DPR's proposal to close up to 70 parks as a result of
a long history of budget cuts to the state park system. The
report that examines the impacts of park closures has the
potential to address some of the public concerns by providing
SB 974 (Evans)
Page 2
retrospective transparency to the closure process. However, this
transparency will require significant amounts of work and
expense for a department with little, if any, extra resources
for the new work required in this bill. Some of the analysis
required for the reports regarding the impacts and rational for
closures have already been completed by DPR in determining the
closure lists, but other required elements, specifically
regarding impacts to local economies and formal actions under
CEQA, have not been done. According to DPR, they do not have the
in-house expertise to evaluate the impact of park closures on
local economies and will thus have to contract out this
assessment at an approximate cost of $50,000 per unit for each
of the 70 parks proposed for closure. DPR would also be required
to hold at least two public meetings to gather public comment
for this report at a minimum cost of $20,000 for a total cost of
at least $3.5 million. Staff notes that the Department has
determined that CEQA does not apply to closing a park. This bill
seems to require DPR to conduct a CEQA process regardless, if
that is the case, this bill could have an additional cost in the
millions to tens of millions of dollars.
This bill would also require DPR to publically release a report
explaining the basis for choosing which parks are to be closed
by July 1, 2012. This information has already been compiled for
a request by the Budget Committee. However, this bill would
require DWR to collect public comment on this information and
respond to each comment in writing and on the website, which has
not yet been done. This response would likely cost DPR at least
$50,000.
This bill would require DPR conduct a closure impact analysis
for any future park proposed for closure. As there are no
additional parks proposed for closure at this time, this
requirement has no costs for FY 2013-14, but an unknown impact
in the future.
This bill would require reopening plans to be developed for each
park closed as well as a master reopening plan. These
requirements reflect the widespread hope that the park closures
necessitated by budget cuts are temporary. When the budget
allows parks to be reopened, the requirements in this bill for
the development of reopening plans and a master parks reopening
plan will be valuable and necessary. DPR estimates that the
SB 974 (Evans)
Page 3
individual plans will cost between $3,000 to $5,000 each for of
the initial plans and approximately $1,000 to $3,000 per plan
for an annual update for approximately $250,000 in one-time
costs and $115,000 in ongoing costs. Staff notes that much of
the information necessary for the reopening plan has already
been collected as part of the closure process, but there is some
cost to compile the information into a plan. The master parks
reopening plan is more comprehensive than the individual park
reopening plans and therefore DPR estimates that this
requirement will cost approximately $1.75 million in one-time
costs for the initial plan. While DPR did not estimate the cost
of annually updating the master plan, staff believes that the
update will likely have similar costs to the individual plan
updates for an ongoing cost of $150,000.
Staff further notes that any budget restoration to DPR may not
necessarily be used to reopen parks. Rather the Legislature and
the Administration will need to decide what portion of restored
funds should be spent on maintaining open parks, which still
have over a billion dollars in deferred maintenance despite
closures, and what portion should be spent on reopening parks.
The master reopening plan required by this bill does not reflect
the need for this discussion.
Proposed Author Amendments: Limit the report regarding impacts
of park closures to only apply to parks proposed to for closure
after July 1, 2012 and reduce the information that must be
contained in the report, including an analysis of local economic
impacts; specify that DPR is not required to conduct a formal
economic or environmental analysis for the purpose of developing
a reopening plan; require that the master parks reopening plan
be based on reopening plans developed for individual parks.
Committee amendments: Limit the report regarding impacts of park
closures to only apply to parks proposed to for closure after
July 1, 2012 and reduce the information that must be contained
in the report, including an analysis of local economic impacts;
require that the master parks reopening plan be based on
reopening plans developed for individual parks; and clarify that
the closure report is due one year from the park being closed to
public access or the ending of department support.
SB 974 (Evans)
Page 4